The failures in leadership relating to Benghazi were not limited to the State Department. The tenure ofthe Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has been marked by what we view as significant deficiencies in command. From Syria to Benghazi, there has been either a profound inability or clear unwillingness to identify and prevent problems before they arise. Given the known operating environment in Benghazi, much less North Africa, a strong military leader would have ensured there was a viable plan in place to rescue Americans should the need arise."

6
posted on 01/15/2014 9:01:58 AM PST
by knarf
(I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)

Yesterday, we found out that our representatives asked the then commander of AFRICOM, General Ham, why he didn’t order attack aircraft to Libya. He responded that in his military opinion, attack aircraft weren’t exactly what they needed at Benghazi. Our great representatives then failed to ask the obvious follow-up question, “What did you send then, General Ham?” How can you miss that follow-up question?

7
posted on 01/15/2014 9:04:31 AM PST
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

Yep: "With the crap-weasels in the government, is just doesnt matter. No one is accountable and the unjust are ruling over the just."

With all due respect,the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?Hillary Clinton

At approximately 11: 10 p.m. Benghazi time, an unarmed, unmanned DoD Predator stirveillance aircraft, which had been diverted approximately one hour earlier by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) from another intelligence collection mission in eastern Libya, arrived over the Mission compound

This is after the initial attack on the Compound but before escaping to the Annex.

Those in the White House Situation Room watched the events in real time from 11:10 when the drone arrive.

"Handle It" was what Obama said when notified, went back to bed to rest up for his campaign trip the next day.

Given the known operating environment in Benghazi, much less North Africa, a strong military leader would have ensured there was a viable plan in place to rescue Americans should the need arise."

I see. After informing them of the need, it's Dempsey's fault that he didn't get Zero and Hillary to issue the orders to protect the consulate. Perhaps a "strong military leader" (you know, the very people Zero and Hillary despise) would have grabbed their hands and moved their pens for them.

14
posted on 01/15/2014 9:27:43 AM PST
by Carry_Okie
(0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take your home to pay for it.)

I think it means a strong military leader would have responded to any and ALL input regarding the atmosphere, made the attempt to utilize the chain of command, but remain in contact with the operatives and ordered, on the spot, retalitory action

16
posted on 01/15/2014 9:40:18 AM PST
by knarf
(I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)

The Supreme Court has a rule ... it will not hear any case for impeachment unless both branches of government the House and the Senate agree and come together asking for impeachment.

We do not have a majority in the Senate thus Boehner's hands are tied for getting impeachment. I do not know how long this rule has stood. I do know we attempted to impeach Bill Clinton. We saw how recently the Republicans/conservatives successfully were labeled as causing the government "shut down" a few weeks ago. Which was not true.

The Supreme Court has a rule ... it will not hear any case for impeachment unless both branches of government the House and the Senate agree and come together asking for impeachment.

Totally untrue. The courts have nothing to do with impeachment other than the Chief Justice presiding over the trial in the Senate. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. The House brings charges by a majority vote, which is the actual act of impeachment. The Senate holds the trial, and it takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict and remove.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

18
posted on 01/15/2014 9:46:14 AM PST
by Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)

Sorry, forgot my source. However the Supreme Court accepts and refuses cases constantly and the information was it is their method to refuse a case for impeachment, unless both the Senate and the House agree on requesting impeachment.

Do not cast the idea out. the SC makes their decisions and we are not privy to all the details.

We know the Senate/Harry Reed would not agree to such an effort. There has to be a reason why all this unconstitutional activity by the President goes unchallenged. It was a radio report saying that is the way the Supreme Court accepts or rejects cases currently.

Impeachment is the way to stop some of this illegal actions. It is not happening nor is there outrage for it.

God help America to return America to our Faith and values, in Jesus name amen.

However the Supreme Court accepts and refuses cases constantly and the information was it is their method to refuse a case for impeachment, unless both the Senate and the House agree on requesting impeachment. Do not cast the idea out. the SC makes their decisions and we are not privy to all the details.

You are still wrong. The courts have nothing whatsoever to do with impeachment. Look up the US Constitution on the Internet and read Article II in its entirety.

22
posted on 01/15/2014 10:35:31 AM PST
by Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)

Each Supreme Court has its own opportunity to decide how and when they agree to hear cases, what criteria they choose, to appear before them. The observation by those interested is they are not accepting cases where the House and Senate do not agree ... it is necessary. If the current Roberts Court says they aren't agreeing to hear impeachment against a sitting President until the House and Senate agree to the impeachment, they can do so. It does not have to be written down. It is their actions that shows what they accept. Boehner is not wanting to butt heads against the President (likely). No point when he knows it will go nowhere. MO. when The House (Republican majority, and Senate (Democrat) majority do not agree on it.

President Clinton was not found guilty. so it accomplished little. Both Hillary and Bill did impeachable actions. MO Power goes to the head of those in powerful positions. Not always, but to some extent, it is heady stuff. There are some that relish in using it. Our current President has done many hurtful actions to the American people. Jobs, and mammoth debts that may well bring America down. Immigration pending. Immigration is to be accomplished on going with quotas, and not suddenly with millions of peoples. MO

No point in arguing, I know what I know and you feel the same, I'm sure.

Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president’s personal counsel on the right.
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[1]
Independent Counsel Ken Starr alleged that Clinton had broken the law during his handling of the Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit. Four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; only two passed, and those on a nearly party-line vote. It was only the second time in history that the House had impeached the President of the United States, and only the third that the full House had considered such proceedings.
The trial in the United States Senate began soon after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republicans began with 55 Senators. A two-thirds majority (67 Senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty Senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no Democrat voted guilty on either charge. - - - “

To Repeat:
* Zipper-Boy Clinton was Impeached by the House.
* The Senate refused to remove Zipper-Boy from office.
* The NINE SUPREMES had nothing to do with either decision.

Impeachment of the President is no small action, guaranteed to make enemies. Most of the, members in the House and Senate are more interested in being reelected, than in making the President their enemy.

That was then ... this is now. Time changes all things, not necessarily for the better. NOTICE current actions of our President. Research the cases the current Supreme Court accepts or hears. Not very exciting reading, I imagine.

The Supreme Court chooses the cases it hears, accepts, or gives a decision regarding. The Supreme Court has the last word in regard to our Constitution and understanding of our laws.
IE
We have seen the law changed recently in regard to traditional marriage,and gay marriage. I do not agree with their decision, I am free to disagree. Their decision becomes the LAW of our land. Legally.

I accept the fact I am not clearly expressing what it is I am attempting to offer. The fact is the house very well might have enough votes to impeach the sitting President. It is frankly obvious the Senate is liberal majority and will not agree and from there it is over. If and when impeachment is decided and voted for It might be brought before the Supreme Court to decide the legality of the decision. The Court has demonstrated it will not hear a case unless the two major governmental bodies are agreed impeachment is obvious or necessary. Everyone is legal in this process.

I apologize for beating a dead horse. Some of us have harder heads than others.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.